Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Jeanette Stewart No 485 Jeanette Stewart v. Louisville Nashville Railroad Company No 904
| Citation | 36 S.Ct. 586,60 L.Ed. 989,241 U.S. 261 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1916 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 485 and 904,s. 485 and 904 |
| Parties | LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY, Plff. in Err., v. JEANETTE STEWART, as Administratrix of the Estate of William H. Stewart, Deceased. NO 485. JEANETTE STEWART, as Administratrix of the Estate of William H. Stewart, Deceased, Plff. in Err., v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY. NO 904 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Benjamin D. Warfield. John B. Rodes, and James C. Sims for the Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company.
Messrs. George H. Lamar. D. W. Wright, C. U. McElroy, and B. F. Procter for Jeanette Stewart, administratrix.
This is an action brought under the employers' liability act of April 22, 1908, chap. 149, 35 Stat. at L. 65, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8657, against the railroad company for negligently causing the death of the plaintiff's intestate, her husband. There were two trials. A verdict and judgment for the plaintiff at the first were set aside by the court of appeals. 156 Ky. 550, 161 S. W. 557; 157 Ky. 642, 163 S. W. 755. A judgment for a less amount at the second trial was sustained. 163 Ky. 823, 174 S. W. 744. The railroad company seeks to overthrow the last judgment; the plaintiff, by her cross writ, seeks to reinstate the first; but, failing that, contends that the last should be affirmed; denying, that is, that there are any grounds for the railroad company's writ.
The object of the plaintiff's writ of error was to go behind the second trial and reinstate state the first judgment. But the verdict was found upon an instruction that the jury should find, if anything, 'such a sum as will fairly compensate his estate for his death,'—given, it would seem, in forgetfulness that the case arose under the act of Congress. See 157 Ky. 642. This instruction was excepted to, and neither justice nor law would permit the verdict and judgment based upon it to be reinstated after the state court had set it aside. We therefore examine the arguments in 904 no farther, and do not cosider whether if, in our opinion, there had been no error of Federal law at the first trial, the plaintiff could have had the relief that she asks. Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch 603, 628, 3 L. ed. 453, 461; Jones Nat. Bank v. Yates, 240 U. S. 541, 563, 60 L. ed. —, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 429.
The railroad company had for its principal object in bringing the case here to set up the 7th Amendment, and to deny jurisdiction in any state court where a verdict of nine or more out of the twelve men on the jury was allowed by the local law. The notion that a substantive right vesting under the law of one jurisdiction cannot be recognized and enforced in another, at least, as between the United States and a state, unless by procedure identical with that of the first, is disposed of in Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Bombolis [241 U. S. 211, 60 L. ed. —, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 595].
The first of the other objections is that the court of appeals was not authorized to add 10 per cent damages on the amount of the judgment, as it did. But the railroad company obtained a supersedeas, and the law of the state makes 10 per cent the cost of it to all persons if the judgment is affirmed. There was no obligation upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alby v. BNSF Ry. Co.
...of the United States has recognized that a state court may apply its own postjudgment procedures in FELA cases. In Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company v. Stewart , the Supreme Court approved the use of Kentucky’s postjudgment supersedeas procedure that required any party who sought to a......
-
Ferguson v. Cormack Lines
...P. & N.R. Co., 241 U.S. 237, 36 S.Ct. 592, 60 L.Ed. 977; affirmance of judgment for defendant affirmed. Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Stewart, 241 U.S. 261, 36 S.Ct. 586, 60 L.Ed. 989; affirmance of judgment for plaintiff Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Renn, 241 U.S. 290, 36 S.Ct. 567, 60 L.Ed. 100......
-
Kinzell v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
... ... CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant Supreme Court of Idaho ... Eight unimpeached railroad men ... proved that the speed of the train did ... S. Notes; Pollock on Torts, 10th ed., p. 485; ... Neil v. Idaho etc. Ry. Co., 22 Idaho 74, ... 213, 96 A. 461; Nashville, ... C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Banks, 156 Ky, 609, ... 1068; [33 Idaho 7] ... Louisville & N. Ry. Co. v. Stewart, 241 U.S. 261, 36 ... ...
-
Pennzoil Company v. Texaco, Inc, 85-1798
...of execution are available as a matter of federal constitutional right was rejected long ago. In Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Stewart, 241 U.S. 261, 36 S.Ct. 586, 60 L.Ed. 989 (1916), Justice Holmes explained for a unanimous Court that a State is not bound, by reason of providing an app......